That was different! A what-if? scenario that lots of Jane Austen fans must have wondered about — what if Dear Jane had not been a spinster all her life before dying at the tragically young age of forty-one? What if she had in fact enjoyed the same happy ending that she so generously gave all her heroines? It sounds implausible, but astonishingly, it really works.
The thesis is that Persuasion, perhaps Jane’s most romantic novel with its regrets and a miraculous second chance for happiness, mirrors Jane’s own life. While celebrating the marriage of her brother Henry to Eliza, Jane meets Captain Devereaux, a Frenchman who has escaped the troubles in France to join the British navy against the French. There is a whirlwind romance, quickly followed by a proposal and acceptance. But Captain Devereaux has not yet made his fortune, and Jane is persuaded to give him up. They part in anger, thus far mirroring the events of Persuasion closely, highlighted by a number of quotes.
Later, they meet again, but (again, in a reflection of Persuasion), there is no happy reunion. Instead, Captain Devereaux becomes entangled with another young woman, and becomes engaged to her, even while recognising the reigniting of his feelings for Jane. So far, so identical. But after this, Jane produces a happy ending for Anne Elliott and Captain Wentworth, while her own life (according to this book) takes a different direction. Captain Devereaux is swept up into the renewal of hostilities with France and vanishes from view, leaving Jane bereft.
I’m not going to spoil the surprise by detailing how things go from then onwards. It seemed perhaps a touch implausible, but then to fit the known facts of Jane’s life as far as possible (which the author has clearly gone to great pains to do) things had to be somewhat convoluted. As I said above, it works for me, but then (like most romance readers) I love a happy ending.
What I think is most astonishing is how well the writing mirrors Jane’s own language. Few modern authors can reach this level of authenticity, and if it largely lacks Jane’s biting wit, well, who could possibly match it? I will never criticise an author on that account. Jane was a towering talent, and no one truly comes close, but this is as close as anyone gets.
In fact, the author writes ‘British’ so well that the odd Americanism is all the more jarring for being so rare. I noticed ‘on High Street’ (for some reason, Brits say ‘on the High Street’), and Jane’s sister-in-law, the former Mary Lloyd, is called Mary Lloyd Austen, in the American fashion of incorporating the maiden name. There were some minor typos, too (demure for demur, discrete for discreet), but nothing drastic.
I’ve had this on my Kindle for a long time (three years!) and now I’m wondering just why I waited so long to read it. A very enjoyable read, beautifully written without taking liberties with history and a cracking romance as well. Five stars and highly recommended.

An odd little book, a bit lacking in the romance department and with far too many not particularly interesting characters milling about at the side of the stage, but very readable.
An odd little book, which I found hard to believe was published only this year. It has the feel of something much more traditional, but is very much one of a kind. To be honest, I’m not at all sure what to make of it.
The one word which summarises this book is charm. It’s a delightful, gentle read, which the author describes as an homage to Georgette Heyer and it really does work pretty well, so for anyone yearning to find a new Heyer, while there’ll never be anyone quite like her, this book is a very acceptable substitute.
The third in the Pevensey series, and another corker. The author is exceptionally skilled at drawing characters with deep family secrets, and at classic murder mysteries; this book (indeed, the whole series) is a stunning combination of both.
After the surprise of the first book, this one came somewhat less out of left field, but it was just as enjoyable. The whole series is inspired by real events in English history, but don’t let that put you off, since the writing is firmly rooted in the Regency.
One of the joys of reading a book for the first time is not knowing precisely what lurks within its pages. Sometimes, in fact most times, if I am being honest, the plot unrolls smoothly and predictably, and that’s fine, too, but sometimes – oh, a glorious few times! – it veers off into unexpected territory. And so it is here.
A lovely and quite unusual story of a young widow fighting to keep her independence. Modern Regencies that feature a spirited and feisty heroine who doesn’t need a man to run her life, thank you very much, are two a penny, but this one is definitely out of the usual mould.
This is a difficult one for me to rate. On the one hand, there’s nothing major wrong with it, really. It just never set me alight… no, worse than that, it never even became interesting. Dull characters, predictable plot, and writing that, while competent, never sparkled.
It’s always interesting to revisit the bad guy from an earlier book and see him reformed and finding his own happiness. It’s a hard act to pull off, and I think the author cheats a little here – we don’t actually see Thomas reform himself, he just appears at the start of the book, several years later, so far reformed that he’s a curate in an impoverished rural parish, now living a blameless life. He’s then given the living at his old home, where everyone remembers him from his wild former existence, and he has an uphill task to convince everyone that yes, he really has changed. And it doesn’t help that a mysterious woman appears and deposits a boy of eight on his doorstep, before disappearing again. Is the boy Thomas’s?